Right-thinking posts a reaction to a CA bill that would allow apartment and condominium dwellers to sue their neighbors for exposing them to second-hand smoke (it's important to read the original news item, as well). I can understand the reaction, because it seems a shame to have laws written to, essentially, discourage rude or selfish behavior. That's pretty much what we're talking about, IMO (again, read the original article). I think Steve Martin said it best in the old bit:

"Do you mind if I smoke?"
"No. (short pause) Do you mind if I fart?"

Martin perfectly captures the way non-smokers (well, at least this one) feel about the way smoking impacts their environment. I wonder if the maintainer of Right Thinking supports his neighbor's right to stand in his back yard and blow an air-horn for an hour or two? Oh wait - there are noise ordinances to prevent such things. Was it just a liberal anti-air-horn-blower campaign that caused the creation of noise ordinances? Or are noise ordinances OK for some other reason that doesn't apply to the concept of a smoking ordinance for public/shared spaces? Both types of ordinances seem to limit freedom in similar ways.

My neighbor occasionally (especially during parties) smokes on his back porch in the summer. I'm sure he does it on the back porch because he doesn't want his house smelling like cigarrette smoke. The problem is that we use a whole-house fan in the summer to pull the cool air in at night. A nasty side-effect is that it also pulls the acrid smoke into the house, too. It's very annoying.

I could (and perhaps should) complain to him (not the police). But I like the guy, and I don't see any reason to put a strain on things since it so seldom happens. However, if he did it every night, that would be another matter. Who's rights are being abridged? I feel that I have a right to (relatively) clean air in my own home. He may feel as though he has the right to smoke in his back yard (which he currently certainly does). My theory (having no law background at all) is that the more aggrieved party is the one subjected to conditions that are not "natural and normal". Boy, does that ever beg for defintion. I think it's easier to provide examples:

a) You're sitting at a bus stop, and someone sits down next to you, carrying a boom-box that's playing very loudly
b) A guy on the bus has a flashlight and constantly shines it in your eyes

The grievances in these examples (and we might as well include smoking and farting) have something in common -- they act at a distance, and are essentially impossible to ignore. I think it's hard to argue that loud boom-boxes, fart methane, and flashlight-in-the-face are natural and normal conditions of most environments (well, maybe they are at your house). My assertion is that there's nothing different between them and smoking. Cigarrette smoke acts at a distance, is annoying to non-smokers, and can pose a health risk, something the other annoyances don't have in common with smoking. However, I think few people argue with laws against noise ordinances and our societal mores against being just plain rude.

So, if smoking has so much in common with these other activities, how does it qualify as a special, protected activity? For non-smokers, it's at least as annoying as any other grievance I've named, but those examples are unlikely to occur because of laws or just plain decency. Why should smoking be thought of differently? Is it because the smoker is addicted, and enjoys the activity so much that it is more rude to ask him not to do it near us, than it is for him to be doing it near us in the first place?.

Geez, this is starting to turn into a giant ramble. So, long story short: Laws against smoking in public/shared places? OK by me, but probably only because I don't have the disgusting habit. However, it's a little disturbing to have to write laws to keep people from being selfish and rude. It's a shame that the "allowable" places are shrinking, and I understand the smokers' reaction to that fact, but it's a little hard for me to feel too sorry for them. I don't care if smokers want to blacken their lungs, so long as they do it somewhere that doesn't also blacken mine. Is that so much to ask?

BTW, the tone of the article is one reason I don't really want to ever be considered right-wing. Reading that site doesn't make me very likely to jump on that particular bandwagon, and is a poor reflection on thoughtful conservatives and folks that generally lean right. Too bad. If someone reading this can point me to a liberal weblog that's as ill-tempered, I'd like to see it.